now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

Weaver95:now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

If cancer medicine is outlawed only outlaws will have cancer medicine.

Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

GAT_00:Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.

Weaver95:GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.

Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

King Something:Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

GAT_00:King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

nor, apparently, do you legalize a drug for it's benefits. look, the entire reason for cannabis being Schedule I is because it has 'no valid medical uses'. well - here's a valid medical use: treating cancer. ergo - cannabis does not qualify as Schedule I. so do you think the DEA is going to take cannabis off the Schedule I list now? f*ck no. which implies there are other reasons for cannabis remaining Schedule I. reasons OTHER than those stated by the Powers That Be in this country.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.

there is NO reason to keep cannabis illegal. nothing valid anyways. whole lot of corrupt reasons...but nothing valid or logical. By our own standards, cannabis should be at most Schedule IV. And you could probably argue for Schedule V if you wanted to push if further.

The way the current GOP behaves, you could solve every medical problem on the planet with mj, and it wouldn't make a difference to them... it's evil, and they don't care how many people need to die to make them feel morally superior.

PainInTheASP:Eddie Adams from Torrance: "We used injections in the animal testing and are also testing pills," he said. "But you could never get enough Cannabidiol for it to be effective just from smoking."

No way, man. I get it. The black car represents cancer, you know? And the chick, see, she's the one who's got the cancer, man. Probably some stage-four super aggressive stuff, man. She looks terrified! And the white car, you know, is marijuana, right? Saving the day and shiat, fark yeah it is, man!

Weaver95:now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.

Weaver95:so do you think the DEA is going to take cannabis off the Schedule I list now?

Thankfully a presidential election is coming up though. So the people can just vote against the ideas supported by the big interest groups like the private prison industry and vote for the candidate that supports reasonable marijuana reform that most Americans approve of, right?....Right?

MrHelpful:Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.

You hear that Weaver? You're a zealot! A pot zealot!!! I mean, o my f'in god!! I mean.. what's it like? Are the hours good?

Well, to be fair, there's lots of other research showing an inverse relationship between cannabis and cancer. The real derp is coming from the DEA, which says things like this on their website "Because marijuana contains toxins and carcinogens, marijuana smokers increase their risk of cancer of the head, neck, lungs and respiratory track." For the strangest reason though, they don't cite any studies (let alone peer-reviewed ones), in defense of that statement. How odd.

Has it been that long for you? The cough was dispensed with ages ago, with the advent of vaporizers. Eating always gave a better high, but one would have to have some amount of patience for it to "kick" in. Active beers, active sodas, active foods or just raw, there is an application to fit your likes and something to provide your needs.

GAT_00:Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

Wait, you say marijuana isn't addictive? Well it certain leads to cognitive breakdown. Just look at the level of derp from the users in here.

I'll skip over your lack of citation, waltz around your rather unsubstantiated assertion that marijuana is addictive, and prance past the following assertion that it leads to cognitive breakdown so that I may get down to asking you just why you think marijuana should be illegal in the first place. Please, elaborate.

Unless of course, you tango with the trolls who believe anything illegal is inherently wrong forever and ever no matter what.

So, according to the "legalize it" crowd, the next time I have a headache I should just smoke some willow bark? Or, the next time I have a cavity, I will just chew on some Hercule's Club warts? Better yet, I'll go munch on some foxgloves to help my arrhythmia. Because, children, that's how modern medicine works

Weaver95:GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.

Weaver95:GAT_00: King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

nor, apparently, do you legalize a drug for it's benefits. look, the entire reason for cannabis being Schedule I is because it has 'no valid medical uses'. well - here's a valid medical use: treating cancer. ergo - cannabis does not qualify as Schedule I. so do you think the DEA is going to take cannabis off the Schedule I list now? f*ck no. which implies there are other reasons for cannabis remaining Schedule I. reasons OTHER than those stated by the Powers That Be in this country.

so don't smoke it then. geez. just cause something's Schedule I doesn't mean you have to try it.

Why hasn't pot been legalized? MONEY. Few existing large industries see any money in it and most governments believe it will reduce their overall tax revenue. They believe legalized pot would be revenue negative due to the alcohol and tobacco sales it would displace. Governments will have to be dragged into accepting its complete legality. Referendums are probably the only way, because even the most liberal of politicos knows the huge hit it will make on tax revenue.

Cannabis is expensive now, even decriminalized weed, but only because of the huge costs of keeping it hidden. Even decriminalized weed needs illicit production and transportation, that is all very expensive. Were it legal, it would be ridiculously inexpensive to grow at industrial scales. It would certainly be no more expensive to grow than tobacco. A cannabis joint should be far cheaper to make than tobacco cigarettes made of complex ingredients and additives. Even with the tremendous complexity and expensive additives used in tobacco cigarettes, the production cost of a single tobacco cigarette is less than 5 cents.

Five farking cents - an industrially produced joint should cost even less. Even if the government added a massive FOUR THOUSAND percent tax, the retail price of a chemical-free, high-quality, reliable, consistent, joint would be $2. Two farking dollars. Cheaper than beer, cheaper than whiskey and because a good high could be had for that $2, providing a lot less tax revenue. (And yes, fully legalized $2 joints would put just about ever current dealer, medical dispensary and independent grower completely out of business, forever.)

The established tobacco and alcohol industries have done the numbers. They're smart people, they're not lobbying for legality. If it starts to near reality, they'll lobby heavily against it. They don't want any part of legalized cannabis. There's no money in it. Most of the world's governments are on the same page, it would reduce their tax revenue, they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards legalized pot.

/fully in favor of legalized, taxed pot//fully opposed to decriminalized, untaxed pot (there's absolutely no way to tax decriminalized products)

MrHelpful:Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.

No but you know what smoking pot does do for cancer patients? It makes eating bearable for patients on chemotherapy. This reason along is good enough one to legalize it.Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.

As a non-user, I don't give a shiat wtf stoners do. I have never been negatively impacted by a stoner. Legalizing it would simply get them all out of everyone faces. It does not actually impact me in any way shape or form whether they smoke or not, and our country could stop spending a stupid amount of money on enforcing policies that do not actually provide any benefit to society, outside of a topic that everyone can get their panties in a bunch over because everyone likes complaining about things, and a bunch of money to a defective prison industry.

Point is if you oppose medicinal marijuana I hope you get cancer (no I really do, if you feel like pointlessly increasing the suffering of others and there are no negative impacts on you then just fark off and die (of cancer)), and find yourself unable to eat, we will see how quick you change your tune about legalization of medicinal marijuana.

Enigmamf:Weaver95: GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.

Cannabidiol is not schedule 1, just unprocessed cannibis.

You don't process cannabis. Look at the schedule drugs Cannabis is listed with, and figure out something real fast when you look. There isn't a chemical process to produce a working drug. It's trimmed, sure, then dried. Funny thing, the cured cannabis doesn't have an overdose threshold. The only caveat is you can't use the same cannabis regularly. It has to be a different strain for the drug's effect to work. This might be the only reason drug companies will fail, and it's the beauty of our bodies and nature at play.

We require variety in our diets for all good things to be effective. By nature, we get bored.

Fun fact:You could put ditch weed in a cooler with dry ice, and the dry ice/CO2 would increase the level of THC as it dissipates. I guess you could call that processing.

I'm sorry, but the anti pot crowd hasn't m a cogent argument in a looooooooong time.

It's obvious to pretty much everyone that there are medical benefits to cannabis. It shouldn't be listed as a schedule 1 narcotic. Especially since no one but the government considers it a narcotic at all.

I don't know what it's from, but it doesn't really seem all that out of place in here.

I disagree, that's clearly meth, not weed.

/then again, the local anti-drug crusaders seem to have been putting up anti-tobacco ads aimed at teens...but the actions they ascribe to tobacco clearly are the work of alcohol.//like "would post THOSE party pictures", "Would crash your car" "Would get you fired from work"...

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.

I think you're a bit quick to call him a zealot. Let's take a quick look at what "schedule 1" is supposed to be:Schedule I Controlled Substances

Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.Now, this seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. If something is schedule 1, how can a place even test if there is even the possibility for medical use to be accepted? But some places, such as this research lab, have moved beyond that (possibly illegally). In doing so, they've found that the plant can and does have medical use. You're right in saying that it's not at plant concentration levels, but the plant itself can be used to produce the medicine, without having to go through a roundabout synthesis process. This directly contradicts the claim that there is no accepted medical use.

Further, there is no lack of accepted safety for use of the drug. Marijuana is safer than caffeine and nicotine, yet it's still considered schedule 1. The potential for abuse is no worse than alcohol, caffeine, or nicotine, yet we allow those and not it.

Basically, there's no reason for it to be scheduled. We allow smoking. We allow drinking. Yet somehow cannabis is considered worse than those. Not only worse, but so much so that it cannot even be considered as legal. That doesn't make sense.

AbstractCannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

Cancer is the biggest moneymaker the medical industry has. It's something like 50 grand a year for cancer treatment drugs alone, which only cost pennies to make. Finding a cure has never been a priority for them. The only reason they pretend there's some massive effort to find a cure is so well intentioned people donate money to them.

Just look at how every drug with promising potential to cure cancer is buried under 20 years of testing, while dodgy drugs for relatively insignificant things are rushed to market, and often found to be harmful later.

The best thing about a chemical in weed being an effective cure or treatment is it bypasses the pharmaceutical industry. fark those ghouls.

GAT_00:King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

Hey everyone, point and laugh at the ignorant fellow who doesn't know what the medical term "side effect" means.

I'd engage him directly but he has such blinders on (or in troll mode) that there is no discussing the topic with him.

GAT_00:Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

Criminalization of cannabis makes it far more difficult to fund research for medical applications.

Regardless, criminalization has a far greater negative impact on society than legalization ever did / could.

GAT_00:King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

Oh Ishould have included this: the 'main effect' of a drug is whatever it is you took it to do. It is not necessarily the strongest effect the drug has on you.

The side effects are every reported or measured effects in the testing of the drug.

Yes, that means a dual-purpose drug can be marketed and prescribed with different main effects.

I take aspirin for a headache. My dad takes it to thin his blood. Each is the drug's main effect for us while the other person's main effect is our side effect.

Finally, for the stupid Gats of the world, increased appetite is a great side effect for the cancer sufferer taking pot for the pain of chemo, as is the easy transition to sleep. It doesn't matter if it can cure cancer as it already has a medical use.

Unless gat would ban all pain killers except one (or x, should he be able to define exactly why only x types should be legal) of course. But that's a pretty stupid approach to medicine isn't it?

Weaver95:now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

Not actually wholly correct. Marinol is a pill form of THC, and it's available by prescription in US and Canada. However, it is slow to absorb and thus difficult to dose accurately, and people seeking pain relief or to counteract nausea (primarily from chemo) don't prefer it. It also lacks CBD which seems to have some additional psychoactive properties, primarily when COMBINED with THC. Arguably self-dosing via inhalation is safer because its effects are immediate and patients can adjust the dose accurately.

This study used cannabidiol (CBD), which is only mildly psychoactive in itself. It'd not overly difficult to build a study around CBD, and it's hardly unfeasible to get a CBD-based drug sold in the US.

Weaver95:GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.

If you grow it, the Pfizer can't patent it and charge you out the ass for it. Why do you hate capitalism?

Lligeret:MrHelpful: Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.

No but you know what smoking pot does do for cancer patients? It makes eating bearable for patients on chemotherapy. This reason along is good enough one to legalize it.Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.

As a non-user, I don't give a shiat wtf stoners do. I have never been negatively impacted by a stoner. Legalizing it would simply get them all out of everyone faces. It does not actually impact me in any way shape or form whether they smoke or not, and our country could stop spending a stupid amount of money on enforcing policies that do not actually provide any benefit to society, outside of a topic that everyone can get their panties in a bunch over because everyone likes complaining about things, and a bunch of money to a defective prison industry.

Point is if you oppose medicinal marijuana I hope you get cancer (no I really do, if you feel like pointlessly increasing the suffering of others and there are no negative impacts on you then just fark off and die (of cancer)), and find yourself unable to eat, we will see how quick you change your tune about legalization of ...

All I did was point out Weaver's hypocrisy. I never said which position I have on the subject. And, for that, you wish cancer on me. Fark you and your idiocy.

truthseeker2083:GAT_00: King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

viscountalpha:I don't condone or endorse recreational use of MJ, but if you actually have cancer and it helps you gain back cravings for food and has positive side effects? I would call that a win/win.

It doesn't belong in the schedule 1 class. I am against us oregonians having a POUND of it before its illegal though.

truthseeker2083:GAT_00: King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

PainInTheASP:Wait...wasn't it supposed to cause cancer last week? I feel like I'm watching a real bummer of a tennis match.

/Man.

yes but at a rate where in the entire population of the US about 3 people will die every 2 years. Can openers are more dangerous. This on the other hand is effective against many cancers and will save thousands of lives.

Can't wait for the baby boomers to all die off, so the gen X'ers can legalize pot... we've already started to legalize same sex marriages... our plan to create the fall of humanity has begun!! MWUAHAHAHAH!!

Actually, everyone would just chill out more and it would be a planet full of happy unicorns and teddy bears.... with cookies... lot's of cookies...

Lligeret:Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.

MOTHERFARKING THIS!!! my mom went from massively opposed to weed to supportive of legalization when my grandpa was dying of leukemia. At that point, anything that would get him to eat more was fine in her book.

I don't know what it's from, but it doesn't really seem all that out of place in here.

I disagree, that's clearly meth, not weed.

/then again, the local anti-drug crusaders seem to have been putting up anti-tobacco ads aimed at teens...but the actions they ascribe to tobacco clearly are the work of alcohol.//like "would post THOSE party pictures", "Would crash your car" "Would get you fired from work"...

Whelp, seems the part that makes you high has nothing to do with the alleged positive effects.. and apparently smoking it won't ever give you enough of it to be effective. So it isn't an excuse to sit around and get high all day as much as you potheads would like it to be.

Things like cancer and heart disease will eventually be a thing of the past. Then nature will find other ways to kill us in the form of diseases that we previously did not live long enough to develop. Then we will find ways to cure those diseases. Then nature will...

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf:Things like cancer and heart disease will eventually be a thing of the past. Then nature will find other ways to kill us in the form of diseases that we previously did not live long enough to develop. Then we will find ways to cure those diseases. Then nature will...

Smackledorfer:Oh Ishould have included this: the 'main effect' of a drug is whatever it is you took it to do. It is not necessarily the strongest effect the drug has on you.

The side effects are every reported or measured effects in the testing of the drug.

Yes, that means a dual-purpose drug can be marketed and prescribed with different main effects.

I take aspirin for a headache. My dad takes it to thin his blood. Each is the drug's main effect for us while the other person's main effect is our side effect.

Finally, for the stupid Gats of the world, increased appetite is a great side effect for the cancer sufferer taking pot for the pain of chemo, as is the easy transition to sleep. It doesn't matter if it can cure cancer as it already has a medical use.

Unless gat would ban all pain killers except one (or x, should he be able to define exactly why only x types should be legal) of course. But that's a pretty stupid approach to medicine isn't it?

I have a genetic form of spinal arthritis (ankylosing spondylitis). One of the many reasons this sucks is that the medication I'm currently on interacts with most OTC analgesics, which means when I do something stupid like yesterday when I tweaked my knee doing squats, I can't take ibuprofen or anything to manage the pain and inflammation.

Except for weed. Cannabis is nonreactive both to my current medication and the toxic industrial strength medication that I'll need to be on if/when the arthritis progresses further.

Cannabis can't replace the main medication I'm on. But I have a condition where I need to exercise every day to prevent my spine from fusing to my pelvis, and I cannot legally acquire a non-reactive anti-inflammatory drug that increases appetite and helps me fall asleep. That seems stupid to me.

The Envoy:Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Things like cancer and heart disease will eventually be a thing of the past. Then nature will find other ways to kill us in the form of diseases that we previously did not live long enough to develop. Then we will find ways to cure those diseases. Then nature will...

Cannabis can't replace the main medication I'm on. But I have a condition where I need to exercise every day to prevent my spine from fusing to my pelvis, and I cannot legally acquire a non-reactive anti-inflammatory drug that increases appetite and helps me fall asleep. That seems stupid to me.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf:Things like cancer and heart disease will eventually be a thing of the past. Then nature will find other ways to kill us in the form of diseases that we previously did not live long enough to develop. Then we will find ways to cure those diseases. Then nature will...

blockhouse:Awful lot of zealots around here. Wake me when cannabis has been shown to prevent metastasis in actual people, not just lab rats or cells in a Petri dish.

/cancer pharmacist//despite the hype, many of my patients don't like Marinol and prefer Remeron or Megace to boost their appetite

A good friend of mine has Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome (CVS) and was perscribed maranol for awhile, didn't work. What was the only thing that did work you ask? Smoking pot, not even fenergan (sp?) helps when he has an episode that will keep him in the hospital for weeks. His doctor will look the other way and wheel him outside to take his medicine.

The only thing that allowed my mother to eat for her last 3 cancer ridden years of her life was smoking pot.

Another friend has gastroparesis, she too is told by her doctor that he would perscribe pot if he could. When she cannot smoke (traveling, at home with her mom etc) she will lose pounds becasue she cannot eat without smoking pot.

Wake up to all of the other uses for it and to the lies perpetuated in negative propaganda.

Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.

The AMA was in full support of keeping weed legal, it was just that everything they said was completely ignored by congress, because you know, everyone in congress was a doctor back then....

A side effect is just an effect of the drug. What makes one effect the "primary" effect, and all others "side" effects? Nothing.

Rogaine was originally developed as an oral blood pressure medication. When they realized that one of the "side" effects was hair growth, they turned it into a topical solution and sold it as a hair loss treatment.

I am hoping that (if) Obama wins and becomes a "Lame Duck President" he can finally change Cannabis from Schedule 1. If not, 3 states have legalization on the ballot so we may finally reach the turning point on this utter farce that is Federal Prohibition - Of a Plant!!. Until then, jury nullification, and making sure we get rid of the politicians who are for this "War on Plants" and also pushing to get even more states to enact medical cannabis laws will remain the only recourse of the will of the people! It is the only way for Americans to overcome the powerful lobbying interests trying to keep the "$tatus Quo" of Private Pri$ion$, Big Pharma, DEA A$$et siezures and the liquor and tobacco and timber industries. "HEMP FOR VICTORY!!!"

Weaver95:GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.

From the sound of it, you need concentrations far higher than the plant can provide, and so it's probably just cheaper and easier to synthesise if it you can. The researchers acknowledge that plant extraction could also make it harder to get the greenlights they need, but I don't think they're doing this for cynical reasons.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.

Erhm, that's not the way I learned it. What I learned was:

'Hemp' was a well-known and widely used crop in the U.S. for many years. In the 1930s, DuPont patented a process for converting wood pulp into paper; up to then, paper had been made mostly from hemp. Unable to compete with hemp economically, DuPont launched an aggressive pubic advocacy campaign against 'marijuana' and hired lobbyists to push legislation banning the demon weed.

It may seem curious that we now use the term 'marijuana' for something that was already well known by a different term, but this was deliberate. 'Marijuana' was an obscure Mexican native medicine word, and DuPont relied on that obscurity to differentiate it from hemp. Americans and their Congress being just as dumb then as they are now, Congress in 1937 banned the demon weed, unwittingly banning the very useful (and non-high-inducing) hemp along with it; many members of Congress later admitted to having been hoodwinked, and said they would not have voted to ban it if they had known it was the same plant.

What has followed has been almost entirely political, of course, and extremely stupid and counterproductive to everyone's interests. Other than DuPont, I can't imagine who actually benefits from this, other than certain especially boneheaded conservative types who manage to squeeze a little political juice out of it.

Weaver95:now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

Weaver95:WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.

there is NO reason to keep cannabis illegal. nothing valid anyways. whole lot of corrupt reasons...but nothing valid or logical. By our own standards, cannabis should be at most Schedule IV. And you could probably argue for Schedule V if you wanted to push if further.

I completely agree. It's unclear to me why it remains at Schedule I, but I assume it's mostly political; I find it hard even to find any economic reasons. From that, I surmise it's almost entirely a cultural fable, like the thing about Korean fan death -- a completely wrongheaded notion that persists only because it's so widely repeated.

I think it won't change until we get a lot more politicians who stand up and say, "Yeah, I toked up, and you know what? It was very enjoyable and didn't hurt me. I'm not embarrassed, I'm definitely not sorry, and absolutely will not apologise for my well-reasoned adult choices. More, I'm working towards decriminalisation because I don't want tomorrow's children to grow up in a nation as misguided as the one I did. We can tax it and make money, instead of pouring gobs of money down a rathole trying to control a harmless damn weed that grows, like, *everywhere,* while diverting our law enforcement from duties actually worth their time and our money. And at the same time, lift cruel and unnecessary government sanctions on vital research into marijuana's very positive medical benefits. If you can't handle all that, then either grow up or move to a country willing to coddle your ignorance, because I'm going to do my best to see that this one no longer does. Next question."

But I don't believe any politician (other than Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, maybe) will do anything like that until a large number of Americans openly, forcefully, and very vocally voice their own disapproval of current policy. To that end, I encourage people to openly flaut the law, even at the risk of prosecution, if you can afford the consequences. (In many jurisdictions these days, not much, if your infraction is minimal. In some, possibly none at all.) Massive, visible, widespread, and sustained civil disobedience is likely the shortest road to decriminalisation, in my view. That, and what I hope will be a growing trend in law enforcement and justice to just not take these laws seriously anymore, the same way we ignore countless other outdated laws still on the books.

Lligeret:No but you know what smoking pot does do for cancer patients? It makes eating bearable for patients on chemotherapy. This reason along is good enough one to legalize it.Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.

Except that's a BS argument. If someone with cancer is having issues they need to talk with their oncologist about adjusting the dose or type of anti-emetics and steroids. Pot doesn't do a very good job of anything except messing up your head.

willyfreddy:Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment//but your scientists are ace///good singers too

This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.

Has it been that long for you? The cough was dispensed with ages ago, with the advent of vaporizers. Eating always gave a better high, but one would have to have some amount of patience for it to "kick" in. Active beers, active sodas, active foods or just raw, there is an application to fit your likes and something to provide your needs.

MrHelpful:Lligeret: MrHelpful: Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.

No but you know what smoking pot does do for cancer patients? It makes eating bearable for patients on chemotherapy. This reason along is good enough one to legalize it.Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.

As a non-user, I don't give a shiat wtf stoners do. I have never been negatively impacted by a stoner. Legalizing it would simply get them all out of everyone faces. It does not actually impact me in any way shape or form whether they smoke or not, and our country could stop spending a stupid amount of money on enforcing policies that do not actually provide any benefit to society, outside of a topic that everyone can get their panties in a bunch over because everyone likes complaining about things, and a bunch of money to a defective prison industry.

Point is if you oppose medicinal marijuana I hope you get cancer (no I really do, if you feel like pointlessly increasing the suffering of others and there are no negative impacts on you then just fark off and die (of cancer)), and find yourself unable to eat, we will see how quick you change your tune about legali ...

Actually what you did was say he ignored the article. When you actually ignored what was in his post

He simply stated that once again the science shows that the plant has medicinal properties and has been shown to have medical benefits. That by definition means that the plant referred to as marijuana should not be listed as schedule 1 in the US. By the very definition of schedule 1 provided above, anything with medical benefits should not be listed there.

It is pretty simple. If the plant was not listed as schedule 1 it would not have all the restrictions on it for research purposes. I'm all for legalization but the real issue is that scientific research is being stymied by arguments the government knows are BS and have been proven FALSE.

Even if one is against legalization for personal use, having the government restrict legitimate research on marijuana because of political reasons not helth and safety is bogus

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:willyfreddy: Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment//but your scientists are ace///good singers too

This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.

More continued fall-out from the failed Bush Administration? Say it ain't so, and the TEA party wants to up the levels of DERP and control over women and what people do in the bedroom and yet rail on and on about the Federal Government, our Obama Birther Socialist Keynan POTUS and our historically low tax rates!

viscountalpha:I don't condone or endorse recreational use of MJ, but if you actually have cancer and it helps you gain back cravings for food and has positive side effects? I would call that a win/win.

It doesn't belong in the schedule 1 class. I am against us oregonians having a POUND of it before its illegal though.

/ffs what a dumb measure

Do you have any argument for these feelings you have? Or are you just going with your gut on it?

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.

Canada does the same stuff. Try getting in with a DUI. I think its a 10 year ban, which I guess is better than life-long, but still. Then of course at the end of the 10 they may hold that against you in the issuing of new crossing documents.

Canada also now wants me to call in and report an entry if I go onto their half of lake eerie to fish (no dropping anchor, no boat to boat contact, no land contact). That's actually more strict than our customs, who consider the three items in parentheses to be requirements for reporting your entry. Not to be confused the border patrol side of things, who can and will, without need for any level of suspicion, perform border searches on boats of both nations that cross the halfway point of the great lakes and the Detroit River - canadian authorities do the exact same thing as well.

Penalty for not calling in, on both sides, can be large fines and boat seizures. To my knowledge neither one is particular aggressive about major fines or seizures, despite reading you a riot act if you don't. They are now issuing written documented warnings though. I've always called in just because it's no real trouble, but calling in every time I go up the river through a shipping channel is kind of tedious.

stonicus:If you grow it, the Pfizer can't patent it and charge you out the ass for it. Why do you hate capitalism?

I don't think it's that simple. A guy once said to me that the hope of taxing pot is fallacious, because if it was made legal then everyone would just grow their own. Yet Dunkin Donuts seems to be doing okay even though it's legal to make coffee at home. People will pay for convenience and at least the illusion of quality control. And from Starbucks' example, we also know that they'll pay extra for prestige. I bet there are rich sick people who pay extra for patent drugs because they feel that generics are pedestrian.

CheekyMonkey:missiv: Fun fact:You could put ditch weed in a cooler with dry ice, and the dry ice/CO2 would increase the level of THC as it dissipates. I guess you could call that processing.

How?

Beats me, but you can do the same a lot faster, cheaper, and easier by sauteing it in butter. Heat converts CDB to THC acid, the psychoactive ingredient in pot. Heat also destroys THC acid, but not as quickly or efficiently, so sauteing it in butter delivers a net increase in THC acid. This is also how you bond it to the fatty acids that activate the bile that you need for uptake if you eat it; otherwise, your body mostly just flushes it through without touching it.

CeroX:Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...

No, but it can be logically derived from the well-documented fact that pot makes everyone sleep with everyone. From that, you can derive any sample subsets you want and connect them to any others you want. Republicans sleeping with liberals, even. (At least, she claimed she was a Republican. She was high at the time, so who knows.)

MrHelpful:Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.

So, I guess we can just extract it from magical invisible non-illegal plants, right?

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:CeroX: Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...

No, but it can be logically derived from the well-documented fact that pot makes everyone sleep with everyone. From that, you can derive any sample subsets you want and connect them to any others you want. Republicans sleeping with liberals, even. (At least, she claimed she was a Republican. She was high at the time, so who knows.)

Dude, when am I having all this sex? I mean, I must be having lots of sex with different partners, I smoke cannabis.

Rogue Surf:I am hoping that (if) Obama wins and becomes a "Lame Duck President" he can finally change Cannabis from Schedule 1. If not, 3 states have legalization on the ballot so we may finally reach the turning point on this utter farce that is Federal Prohibition - Of a Plant!!. Until then, jury nullification, and making sure we get rid of the politicians who are for this "War on Plants" and also pushing to get even more states to enact medical cannabis laws will remain the only recourse of the will of the people! It is the only way for Americans to overcome the powerful lobbying interests trying to keep the "$tatus Quo" of Private Pri$ion$, Big Pharma, DEA A$$et siezures and the liquor and tobacco and timber industries. "HEMP FOR VICTORY!!!"

First of all, chill. This kind of hysteria won't get us anywhere.

Second, the President does not control drug scheduling. It might surprise you to learn this, but the president is chief executive, not a dictator, and does not have free rein to do whatever he pleases or thinks right. Under the law, Congress controls most things, including most of what the Executive Branch can do. This is why most of the things that presidential candidates say are worthless, since the Office of the President does not have unilateral power to do most of those things. Obama can not and will not reschedule cannabis or any other drug, because he can't.

What he CAN do, however, is try to get the legally required machinery for it in motion, so you're definitely right about that much. The system is at least as much political as it is legal, so it does probably need at least the president's blessing before we'll likely see any change. Here's how it really works, though, and this might help people to understand why this change is so hard to make in reality:

As outlined in the Controlled Substances Act, as amended, "any interested party" (anyone, really), may petition for rescheduling of any drug. This petition must be made to the Drug Enforcement Agency. The DEA then investigates the petition, and if they feel it has merit they then pass it on to Health and Human Services for scientific evaluation. If HHS agrees with DEA's findings, they then jointly pass the recommendation to the FDA for evaluation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse for recommendation. What's supposed to happen then is that if all these parties agree, HHS may in effect direct (order) the DEA to reschedule or deschedule the drug in question.

All that fun aside, there's a bigger issue that kind of pisses on the campfire of grassroots hopes and dreams, and that's that the U.S. is party to a number of international drug control agreements that are effectively binding on us, even if we disagree. These agreements and their attendant provisions within our own laws make it easy to reschedule drugs to more restrictive categories, but difficult or all but impossible to move them to less strict categories or deschedule them entirely; the only remedy would be to pull out of those agreements or renegotiate their binding effect on us. (To clarify, other nations can't tell us what to do; but they can decide on their own if they want to cooperate with us, and to what extent.)

So it's not that pot *can't* be rescheduled, only that it's much more difficult than the president waving his magnifient bejeweled hand and making it so.

/your government is an embarrassment//but your scientists are ace///good singers too

This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.

More continued fall-out from the failed Bush Administration? Say it ain't so, and the TEA party wants to up the levels of DERP and control over women and what people do in the bedroom and yet rail on and on about the Federal Government, our Obama Birther Socialist Keynan POTUS and our historically low tax rates!

LavenderWolf:Sylvia_Bandersnatch: CeroX: Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...

No, but it can be logically derived from the well-documented fact that pot makes everyone sleep with everyone. From that, you can derive any sample subsets you want and connect them to any others you want. Republicans sleeping with liberals, even. (At least, she claimed she was a Republican. She was high at the time, so who knows.)

Dude, when am I having all this sex? I mean, I must be having lots of sex with different partners, I smoke cannabis.

I forgot to mention, it helps a lot to be young, passably good-looking and hygeinic, reasonably likeable, and at least vaguely interesting. It was a long time ago, and I barely remember it now. Come to think of it, I barely remembered it then.

Weaver95:now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

They haven't found me.

/harvesting the plants tonight. Hang to dry for 6-8 days then cure the buds in glass jars for about 30 days. Then it's Xmas for all my friends.

GAT_00:Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

Well there are components of red wine that are helpful. But if we can extract it, we have no reason to allow alcoholic beverages to be legal any longer.

GAT_00:King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

I would like to point out that everything is by default - legal. Its not for us to show why pot should be legalized(even if it was on us, this is just another example). Its on other people to show why it should continue to be illegal - let along why it ever should have been in the first place. You could make a stronger case for making caffeine illegal than marijuana - if you are sticking to scientific facts.

Mr. Eugenides:Except that's a BS argument. If someone with cancer is having issues they need to talk with their oncologist about adjusting the dose or type of anti-emetics and steroids. Pot doesn't do a very good job of anything except messing up your head.

How is it a BS argument? If there are patients who respond to cannabis as an anti-emetic or as appetite enhancer better than placebo, it seems to me that meets the definition of having medical use. Merely saying "yeah, but some other drugs can also do that" doesn't invalidate that use. Consider that we have multiple drugs that can all be used to relieve headaches or joint pain. Should anything after the first be banned because hey, you should just talk to your doctor about getting medicine x? No, of course not.

Tawnos:Mr. Eugenides: Except that's a BS argument. If someone with cancer is having issues they need to talk with their oncologist about adjusting the dose or type of anti-emetics and steroids. Pot doesn't do a very good job of anything except messing up your head.

How is it a BS argument? If there are patients who respond to cannabis as an anti-emetic or as appetite enhancer better than placebo, it seems to me that meets the definition of having medical use. Merely saying "yeah, but some other drugs can also do that" doesn't invalidate that use. Consider that we have multiple drugs that can all be used to relieve headaches or joint pain. Should anything after the first be banned because hey, you should just talk to your doctor about getting medicine x? No, of course not.

Except that in this case you're comparing a drug that farks you up mentally with one that keeps you clear headed. So if you have a drug that doesn't work as well and has side effects I'd say use the good stuff. The good stuff isn't pot.

I'm speaking as someone who has had to deal with chemotherapy more times in the past 30 years than I hope you ever have to. I've seen the side therapys change and while pot may have had a place 20 years ago, it has been far surpassed.

Mr. Eugenides:Except that in this case you're comparing a drug that farks you up mentally with one that keeps you clear headed. So if you have a drug that doesn't work as well and has side effects I'd say use the good stuff. The good stuff isn't pot.

Are you suggesting that the various drugs given for cancer are without side effects? Or that it's somehow unacceptable to have a drug that alters your baseline state?

I'm speaking as someone who has had to deal with chemotherapy more times in the past 30 years than I hope you ever have to. I've seen the side therapys change and while pot may have had a place 20 years ago, it has been far surpassed.Appeal to authority much?

Julie Keaton: Plomox is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug on the market right now, and it has minimal side effects - only nausea, impotence, and anal leakage.Dr. Cox: [smiling] I'm gettin' two out of three just from the conversation!

Weaver95:now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I just have to thank Obama for sending in his goons to shut down these devil pot shops in California. What a true hero.

I'm going to cringe when I vote for him, but godamnit I still have to.

Novart:Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I just have to thank Obama for sending in his goons to shut down these devil pot shops in California. What a true hero.

I'm going to cringe when I vote for him, but godamnit I still have to.

If he were for legalization I don't think he could win.

It's sad to say that. Does our government lay antidrug propaganda? Sure.Is it easy for any american to learn better? Absolutely.

Weaver95:now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

hey have you seen the trailer for "The House I Live In"? I hope that documentary gets a wide release. People need to see it.

Novart:Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I just have to thank Obama for sending in his goons to shut down these devil pot shops in California. What a true hero.

I'm going to cringe when I vote for him, but godamnit I still have to.

I'm not so sure he can do anything about it really. I was under the understanding that as long as its the law that his hands are tied. What you have out there is a DEA chief,federal marshalls and others intent on shutting those places down and until you remove a lot of them or change the law it will remain that way.